Volume 241 — United States Reports

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this court of appeals from the District Court under § 238, Judicial Code, aré stated in the opinion.

Held: under the circumstances of this case, not to furnish . grounds for release on habeas corpus, it not appearing that a different rule applies in the demanding country.

The facts, which involve the validity of a verdict under the Employers’ Liability Act, are stated in the opinion. Where it appears either in the declaration or in the proof that the accident occurred in interstate commerce, the Act of Congress controls and, in case of death, a widow cannot recover in her own name. Wabash R. R. v. Hayes, 234 U. S. 86; Toledo &c. R. R. v. Slavin, 236 U. S. 454.

The facts, which, involve the jurisdiction of this court on appeal from the District Court under § 238-, Judicial Code, and the jurisdiction of the District Court to make and enforce a decree based on substituted service of process, are stated in the opinion. Ogilvie was privy to the original suit, and was an actual, although not an ostensible, party thereto, in such a real sense that the decree will be res judicata against him.

The facts, which involve the construction of the Safety-Appliance Act and the validity of a verdict against the carrier, are stated in the opinion. Defendant in error received injury caused by a defective ladder, on a box car while he was working as a switchman in the yard at Marshall, Texas. He recovered under the Safety Appliance Act. To recover he must bring himself under the Safety Appliance Act and under the Employers’ Liability Act.

The facts are stated in the opinion. This court has jurisdiction of this writ of error. The required jurisdictional amount is here 'in' dispute and constitutes the ground of review. No certificate is required as to the question of jurisdiction of the court below. Writ of error and not appeal is the proper procedure for review. The opinion below does not stand analysis.

The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution of the statute of the State of Texas imposing licenses on places of business of Express Companies where intoxicating liquors are delivered C. O. D., are stated in the opinion.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP WISCONSIN.</p> <p>The facts, which involve the right of a railroad to collect demurrage on cars in interstate and intrastate commerce, are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>While the fraudulent advertisements covered by the provisions of § 215, Criminal Code, prohibiting using the mails for advertisements, may not include those which merely puff the article to be sold by exaggerating its qualities, it does prohibit using the mails for fraudulent statements assigning to such article qualities which it does not possess.</p> <p>An article alone is not necessarily the inducement and compensation for its purchase, but the use to which it may be put and the purpose it may serve; and there is deception and fraud within the meaning of § 215, Criminal Code, when the article is not of the character represented and hence does not serve the purpose.</p> <p>Persons employing such representations, if they are false, are engaged in a scheme to defraud within the meaning of § 215, Criminal Code.</p> <p>The demurrer to an indictment under § 215, Criminal Code, having been sustained and the Government having appealed under the Criminal Appeals Act, and the appellee having contended that the court below passed only on the sufficiency of the indictment, and did not consider the statute, held that, although such contentions did involve a consideration of the indictment, they involved also the construction of the statute; but, in reversing the District Court as to its action in sustaining the demurrer, this court has no intention of controlling the District Court in its construction of the indictment and so remands the case.</p>

The facts, which involve the construction and application of § 6 of the White Slave Traffic Act, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the commerce clause of, and the Fourteenth Amendment to, the Federal Constitution of Act No. 10 of Louisiana of 1915, relative to, and regulating the business of, refining sugar, are stated in the opinion.

Held: the laws in force at the time and place of the making of a contract, and which affect its validity, performance and enforcement, enter into and form a part of it, as if they were expressly referred to or incorporated in its terms. Von Hoffman v. Quincy, 4 Wall. 535 , 550; Walker v. Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314 , 317; Ed *92 wards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595 , 601. A bill of lading is a contract and within this rule.

The facts, which involve the application and construction of statutes of the United States relating to the probate of wills in Indian Territory, are stated in the opinion.,

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this court, and of the Circuit Court of Appeals, the construction of § 32 of the Penal Code, and the power of assignment of a judge of one District to preside over the District Court of another district under the Act of October 3, 1913, are stated in the opinion. A congressman is not an officer of the United States. Bowen’s Documents of the Constitution; 1 Farrand Records of the Fed.

. Petition in the Court of Claims for the recovery of $300,000 for damages alleged to havp been caused by the officers and agents of tbe United States under the authority of an act' of Congress creating the Mississippi River Commission by the construction and extending of a dike known as the Leland Dike upon the land of petitioners, called the Point Chicot Plantation.

Held: that although there was ambiguity in the contract, the roadway was included in the contract and the contractor is entitled to be compensated for work done thereon in accordance with the terms of the contract. 48 Ct. Cl. 169 , reversed. Appellant is the receiver of the firm of Cowardin, Bradley, Clay & Company, and the successor of one John D. McClennan.

. The facts, which involve the validity of provisions in decree for divorce affecting division of conjugal property made by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the right of a trustee in bankruptcy to recover an alleged preferential payment made by the bankrupt within four months of the filing of the petition under an agreement made more than four months before the filing, are stated in the opinion. The action was to cover an alleged unlawful preference. The judgment of the District Court did not depend upon diverse citizenship alone. The defendant in error waived its lien.

The facts, which involve the validity of a judgment for damages recovered by the representative of an employee of an interstate carrier in the state court and under the state law, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the validity of a judgment for damages recovered by the representative of an employee of an interstate carrier in the state court and under the Federal Liability Act, áre stated in the opinion.

Held: The provision in the contract that the time was sufficient unless extraordinary conditions should supervene does not amount to a-promise for extension if such conditions do supervene.

Georgia, Florida, & Alabama Railway Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. 190 (1916), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The facts, which involve the legality of a transfer of assets made by the bankrupt more than four months prior to the filing of the petition, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the validity of a verdict and judgment under the Employers’ Liability Act and the application and effect of the Seventh Amendment in suits in the state courts under that Act, are stated in the opinion. The right of trial by jury which is secured to all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by the pro visions of the Seventh Amendment, means a jury of twelve men who must, in finding facts, act unanimously. Am.

The facts, which involve the validity of a verdict and judgment for damages under the Employers’ Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the construction and application of the contributory negligence provisions of the Employers’ Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the construction and application of the contributory negligence provisions of the Employers’ Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the validity of a verdict and judgment for personal injuries under the Employers’ Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the construction and application of Rev. Stat., § 4529, as amended by the Act of December 21, 1898, are stated in the opinion. Respondent rendered services as a seaman. The respondent was under shipping articles, because the articles were for a definite time and the respondent’s duties under the articles had not been completely performed.

Held: in this case, to be a common carrier within the meaning of the District of Columbia Public Utility Act of 1913, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, as to the terminal and hotel business, but not as to the garage business.

American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 (1916), was a United States Supreme Court case governing the scope of federal question jurisdiction.

■ The facts, which, involve the validity of a verdict and judgment in an action in the state court under the Employers’ Liability Act, áre stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve- the validity of a verdict and judgment -for damages for personal injuries in an action under the Employers’ Liability Act,, are stated in the opinion. Plaintiff was at the time of his injury employed in interstate commerce and his complaint states a cause of action under the statute of North Carolina defining the liability of a railroad to its employés, and also under- the common law.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the District Court of a suit against a corporation incorporated by a statute of the United States, are stated in the opinion. Jurisdiction to hear and determine such suits as this against the Texas and Pacific Railway Company was expressly vested in the appropriate Federal courts by the act of Congress incorporating said company.

The facts, which involve the validity of a judgment in an action in the state court for personal injuries under the Employers’ Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.

Held: The one controlling point in this case is. as to whether or not there is a presumption in favor of the defendant's compliance with , the law whereby it seeks by its action to escape from liability.” “There is no doubt in the mind.of the Court but that if the railroad were charged with a violation of the provisions, oí the Interstate Commerce Act, a presumption in favor of its compliance would arise; but where the…

The facts, which involve the validity under the Federal Constitution of a statute of Wisconsin providing for revocation of licenses granted to corporations not organized under the laws of that State in case they remove into the Federal courts actions commenced against them by citizens of the State on causes of action arising in the State, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the validity of a verdict and judgment in an action under the Employers’ Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.

The. facts, which involve the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment of Public Act No. 301 of 1913. of Michigan, imposing licenses on the conducting of employment agencies, are stated in the opinion. The provision in § 5 of the statute is unconstitutional in that it abridges the right and liberty to contract, and is a denial of due process of law. The whole act is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Held: in this case, to be subject to the Safety Appliance Acts in regard to grab-irons and hand-holds, notwithstanding they were used at the terminals of the roads upon street railways.

The facts, which involve the rights of riparian owners on the Mississippi River and the power of the Federal and state Governments to construct levees along the same and liability resulting therefrom, are stated in the opinion.

which preceded it drawn by the court which is as follows: “1. The rule which invests the innocent holder of á bill of lading with rights not available to the shipper, declared in Savings Bank v. A., T. & Santa Fe. R. R., 20 Kansas, 519; Railway Co. v. Hutchings, 78 Kansas, 758, 99 Pac. Rep. 230 ; and Hutchings v. Railway Co., 84 Kansas, 479, 114 Pac.

The facts, which involve the construction of statutes relating to the right of Indians to make homestead entries on-the public lands, are stated in the opinion..

Appellant is a New York corporation. It filed a petition in the Court of Claims for the recovery from the United States of the sum of $4,475.90 for extra work performed in the construction of the foundation for the extension and remodeling of the United States assay office in New York. Issue was joined on the petition and the Court of Claims, after hearing, dismissed it. 49 Ct. Cl. 553.

<p>A statute must be so construed, if fairly possible, as to avoid not only the conclusion that it is unconstitutional, but also grave doubts upon that score. United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 TJ. S. 366.</p> <p>This court cannot assume to know judicially that no opium is produced in this country; nor is it warranted in so assuming when construing a statute itself purporting to deal with producers of that article.</p> <p>When Congress contemplates the production of' an article within the United States, this court must construe the act on the hypothesis that such production takes place.</p> <p>An attempt of Congress to make possession of an article — in this ease opium — produced in any of the States a crime, would raise the gravest question of power. United States v. De Witt, 9 Wall. 41.</p> <p>In construing a statute which calls itself a registration or taxing act and does not purport to be in execution of a treaty and which contains a provision not required by any treaty, a grave doubt arises whether such a statute is entitled to the supremacy claimed for treaties on the ground that it does in effect carry out existing treaty obligations on the’ general subject of both treaty and statute.</p> <p>While the Opium Registration Act of December 17, 1914, may have a moral end, as well as revenue, in view, this court, in view of the grave doubts as to its constitutionality except as a revenue measure, construes it as such.</p> <p>Every question of construction is unique, and an argument that might prevail in one case may be inadequate in another.</p> <p>Only definite words will warrant the conclusion that Congress intended to strain its powers, almost, if not quite, to the breaking point, to make~a great proportion of citizens prima facie criminals by mere possession of an article.</p> <p>The words “any person not registered ” in § 8 of the Opium Registration Act of 1914 do not mean any person in the United States, but refer to the class dealt with by the statute — those required to register —and one not in that class is not subject to the penalties prescribed by the statute.</p>

<p>In an action by a bank in Port Arthur to recover money, remitted by it to a, bank in Seattle for a draft secured by shipping documents sent to it for collection by the Seattle Bank, and which the Port Arthur Bank declared had not been paid, but for which it remitted on agreement of the Seattle bank to refund in case non-payment was proved, the jury found a general verdict in favor of the Seattle Bank and also a special finding to the effect that the Port Arthur Bank did receive payment for the draft in question; such special finding was based on testimony to effect that the Port Arthur Bank permitted the consignee to take possession of 'the goods covered by the documents attached to the draft on his agreeing to deposit the proceeds thereof as sold, and an instruction to the effect that such action on the part of a bank receiving a draft for collection constituted a payment in law; judgment being entered thereon and' affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, this court reviewing on certorari held that:</p> <p>The fair import of the instructions of the trial judge in their entirety, being that the finding of payment was to be reached only in case the value of the goods was not less than the amount of the draft, there was no error therein.</p> <p>Where a bank, holding a-draft for collection with documents annexed and with instructions to deliver the documents only on payment, allows the drawee to take the goods covered by the documents on his promises to sell and account for proceeds, it amounts to a misappropriation of the property and liability to account for its value immediately arises.</p> <p>There was no error in charging that the collecting bank became invested with the ownership of the goods and could not be excused from obligation to-account by declaring'that the goods had disappeared without its knowledge, the charge not being to. effect that the relation of vendor and vendee did exist, but that the relation of principal and agent did exist, and, as such agent, the collecting bank was obligated to act in good faith to protect the rights of the owner of the draft.</p> <p>The special finding being supported by adequate evidence is controlling.-</p> <p>Even if a bank, sending a draft for collection, suffers no loss on account of its guaranty from the original owner, it may, in view of its relation to commercial paper, demand, as principal, an accounting from its correspondent, and resist an action to recover back the money which it received upon the draft.</p>

<p>The extent of the authority conferred upon a city by its charter, the construction of such charter, and the validity, scope and effect of ordinances adopted by the city and of proceedings thereunder and the rights of parties thereto under state law, are matters of state law as to which the decision of the state court is controlling.</p> <p>A ruling as to the effect, with respect to supplemental proceeding, of the decree in a court of the same State holding a prior assessment void as to certain parties for want of required notice, does not present a Federal question.</p> <p>An owner of property, which may be assessed for benefits in order to pay an award for property condemned, is not entitled, under the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, to be made a party to the condemnation proceeding or to be heard as to the amount of the awards; due process of law requires only those whose property is to be taken for'public improvement to have prior notice.</p> <p>The question under the Fourteenth Amendment is one of state power and not of state policy; of what the State must accord — not what it may grant or withhold in its discretion.</p> <p>Differences due to voluntary action and diverse individual choice may arise under equal laws and not amount to denial of equal protection of the- law within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amend- ' ment.</p> <p>While all taxes and assessments are necessarily laid by some rule of apportionment, and a scheme of. distribution which is palpably arbitrary and constitutes a plain abuse may be condemned as violating the Fourteenth Amendment, the mere fact that there may be inequalities is not enough to invalidate the action of a State.</p> <p>Where assessments are made by a political subdivision according to special benefits, the property owner is entitled to be heard as to the amount of his assessment and all matters properly entering into that determination, but he is not' entitled to be heard not only as to the assessment on his .property but also as to the assessments on all other property owners.</p> <p>Where a state statute provides for a supplemental proceeding to correct errors in an assessment proceeding, nothing in the Federal Constitution prevents the inclusion in the supplemental proceeding of properties omitted from the original proceeding.</p> <p>The Seventh Amendment has no application to an assessment or condemnation proceeding in a state court.</p>

Held: that later acts of Congress in regard to Osage Indian allotments did not attempt to import into the earlier act a restriction which lay wholly outside of its express terms and the policy it was intended to execute.

The facts, which involve the constitutionality, under the Fourteenth Amendment, of the statute of Oregon relating to appropriation and distribution of water, and the validity of proceedings thereunder, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this court to review judgments of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands and the validity of a judgment of that court in an action on contract between private parties, are stated in the opinion. ■

The facts, which involve the validity of a judgment for damages for personal injuries in an action under the Employers’ Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.

Held: that there was nothing in the evidence that would sustain a finding that plaintiff assumed the risk. The crucial question is whether he knew or had sufficient notice of the increased danger attributable to the employer’s negligence. .

Held: in this case, in view of the state of the record, not to be a ground for reversal. Amendment to the Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1903 enlarged the scope of the act so as to embrace all vehicles used on any railway that is a highway of interstate commerce whether employed at the time or not in interstate commerce.

The facts, which involve the application of the Seventh Amendment to cases in the state, court under the Employers’ Liability Act, the construction and application of that Act, and the validity of a judgment in an action thereunder, are stated in the opinion. The verdict was sustained by the preponderance of evidence. Civil Code (Ky.), §§ 340-341; Hurt v. L. & N. R. R., 116 Kentucky, 553; L. & N. R. R. v. Chambers, 165 Kentucky, 703.

Held: in Ches. & Ohio Ry. v. Kelly, Admx., this day decided, ante, p. 485, that the theory is erroneous, it results that the judgment here under review must be Reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

<p>la an action under the Employers’ Liability Act brought by an engineer of an interstate electric road, for injuries resulting from a collision the jury found a general verdict for plaintiff; and, in accordance with the practice of the State, made special findings that the violation by plaintiff of orders received before starting was the proximate cause of the collision and that immediately before the collision the brakes on the train were insufficient to enable him to control the speed of the train. Held that:</p> <p>On the record the jury must have found that the defective air brakes were a proximate cause of the collision.</p> <p>Under the Safety Appliance Act, if the equipment was defective or out of repair the question of whether it was attributable to the company’s negligence or not is immaterial.</p> <p>An electric interstate road is not exempted from the requirements of the Safety Appliance Act .because its terminals run over street railways. Spokane &c. v. United States, ante, p. 344.</p> <p>The fact that an employee may have violated an order does not-take him from the protection of the Safety Appliance Act; if, as an actual fact, the brakes were defective and such defectiveness was a proximate cause of the injury.</p> <p>Proof that an employee violated an order is not proof that he did so wilfully; and where wilfulness is not found such violation is only negligence and not a departure from the course of employment.</p> <p>The right of an employee of an interstate carrier by rail to recover for an injury depends upon the Acts of Congress, to which all state legislation affecting the subject-matter yields.</p> <p>Where the contributory negligence of the injured employee and the defendant’s violation of the Safety Appliance Act are concurrent proximate causes the Employers’ Liability Act requires the former to’be disregarded.</p> <p>Quaere whether under the conformity act (Rev. Stat. 914) the Federal trial court is required to adhere to the state practice governing the effect of a general verdict and special findings.</p>

<p>This court will not presume that the demanding government will ■ suffer a person surrendered pursuant to treaties of 1842 and 1889, with Great Britain to-be tried for any offense other than that for which he is surrendered.</p> <p>. Where the .commissioner had jurisdiction, the offense is within the ■ treaty, and if he acts upon competent and adequate evidence, - his finding cannot be reversed on habeas corpus.</p> <p>One of the objects of § 5271, Rev. Stat., providing for admission in evidence in extradition proceedings of properly authenticated copies of depositions and proceedings, is to obviate the necessity . of confronting the accused with the witnesses against'him; and neither that section, nor Article X of the Treaty of 1842, should be so construed as to require the demanding government to send its citizens to the country where the fugitive is found to institute legal proceedings: such a construction would defeat the object of the treaty.</p> <p>A fair observance of the extradition treaties with Great Britain requires • in this case that the accused be surrendered, all the objections being technical; and, as the- order was made by a commissioner having jurisdiction, on evidence furnishing reasonable ground for belief that the accused had committed a crime In Canada which is an offense within the treaty both there and in Illinois where he was found, it should be affirmed.</p>

New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy, 241 U.S. 518 (1916), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a court can exert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident party in an interpleader if that party is served with process while physically present within the state.

The facts, which involve the relative rights of the trustee in bankruptcy of a firm of brokers and various customers entitled to shares of stocks carried on margin by such brokers, are stated in the opinion.

<p>PETITION FOR A WRIT OF EXECUTION.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

The facts, which involve the construction and effect of the decision by this court in the Missouri Rate Cases, 230 U. S. 474, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction and power of the Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal from the District Court in Admiralty and the liability of forwarders, carriers and stevedores in connection with the shipment and dehvery of an automobile, , are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the District Court of a suit involving the validity of gas and oil leases on lands of allottee Indians, are stated in the opinion.

Held: that: The decision of the highest court of the State, that under such amendment the legislative power of the State is now vested not only in the General Assembly but also in the people by referendum and that a law disapproved by the referendum was no law, is conclusive here.

Held: that it was the duty of the Circuit Court of Appeals to have followed that ruling and to hold that the gas tester was not a.fellow servant.

The facts, which involve the construction of the charts granted by act of Congress to the Knights of Pythias and the rights and obligations of a holder of its insurance certificates, are stated in the opinion.

Held: and determined by the courts of said State, the successors of said district courts of the Territory of Oklahoma, and the United States courts in the Indian Territory; ...

The facts, which involve the rights, under § 64a of the Bankruptcy Act, of the holders of tax sale certificates of land of the bankrupt, are stated in the opinion.

United States v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591 (1916), is a United States Supreme Court decision which declared that Congress still retains plenary power to protect Native American interests when Native Americans are granted citizenship. United States v. Nice overruled the Heff decision which declared that Native Americans granted citizenship by the Dawes Act were also then citizens of the state in which they resided, meaning the sale of alcohol to such Native Americans was not subject to Congress's authority.

United States v. Quiver, 241 U.S. 602 (1916), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court after first appearing in United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. The case argued on February 28, 1916 and decided on June 12, 1916 concerned adultery committed on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota between two enrolled members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. The district court had held that adultery committed by an Indian with another Indian on an Indian reservation was not punishable under the act of March 3, 1887, c. 397, 24 Stat. 635, now § 316 of the Penal Code. This decision was made because the offense occurred on a Sioux Indian reservation which is not said to be under jurisdiction of the district court.

Held: that: Such statutory provisions are designed to render the District *607 Courts readily accessible to applicants for just ce in all branches of the jurisdiction; and, while they require those courts to be always open only, as courts of admiralty and of equity, they permit special terms to be held at any time for the transaction of any kind of business. General Rule No 1, of the District Court for the.

The facts, which involve the construction and effect of an application for Ufe insurance policy containing false statements, and the liability of the company issuing poU-cies in reUance thereon, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the validity under the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of a judgment of a state court, are stated in the opinion. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the judgment of the District Court on the ground that summary proceedings may be employed in enforcing claims against attorneys for acts done in a professional capacity.

<p>In erron to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia,</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.</p>

<p>In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia.</p>

<p>Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.</p>

<p>In error to the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State Of Texas.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court .of the State of Nebraska.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court ,of the State of Ohio.</p>

<p>In error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota.</p>

<p>. Appeal from and petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.</p>

<p>Appeal from and in error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.</p>

<p>Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Supreme Court of Porto Rico.</p>

<p>Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.</p> <p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of Errors of the State of Connecticut.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the Sta'te of Illinois.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Texas.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio.</p>

<p>In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming.</p>

<p>Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Court of Claims.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United'States for the District of Massachusetts.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands.</p>

<p>In error to the. Superior Court of Cochise County, State of Arizona.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.</p>

<p>Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court, of the State of Iowa.</p>

<p>• In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.</p>

<p>In error to the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Louisiana.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.</p>

<p>On writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington.</p>

<p>In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho.</p>

<p>On writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee.</p>

<p>In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State-of New York.</p>

<p>In error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas.</p>

<p>In error to the Hardin County Quarterly Court, the State of Kentucky.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Illinois.'</p>

<p>In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio.</p>

<p>Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.</p>